Re: Challenge to Define: (me explaining evolutionary theory)
- Length: 8:58
- Rating: 5.00 (2 ratings)
- Views: 44
- Author: a01011399
Tags: bible bigjerre Come creationist Darwin evolution Genes Hovind is k87jury me of on science Tell the theory what
responding to the challenge
Typical arguments use by evolutionists
- Length: 9:49
- Rating: 2.21 (14 ratings)
- Views: 189
- Author: a01011399
Tags: creation creationism creationists debate desertphile evolution evolutionism evolutionists monkey theory
some of the falasies and word games that evolutionists use
Re: Re: Debate: ID vs Evolution
- Length: 6:47
- Rating: 3.00 (4 ratings)
- Views: 66
- Author: a01011399
Tags: aragon creation creationism creationist dating debate evolution evolutionism evolutionists potasium radiometric wrong
Radiometric datingOk lets continue with the debate on radiometric dating, In this video I will try to refute enathan´s arguments and the common arguments used by evolutionists:So my first objection is: We dont know how much of the parent and daughter elements where there, when the rock was formed.Age equation. Y = Ce exp ktWhere C and T are unknownAs you might know it is impossible to solve an equation with to unknown values, you can have any date that you want; it all depends on the initial conditions that you assumed. To overcome this claim, evolutionists say that isochron dating is used to determine the initial conditions of the sample, in the particular case of the K-Ar dating method, evolutionists do the following:They calculate the amount of Ar 40 (daughter elment) and the amount of a non radioactive isotope lets say Ar36. (Isochron) The ratio of Ar40/Ar36 is roughly like 200/1.Knowing this, they conclude that the initial amount of Ar40 is equal to the amount of Ar36 x 200(aprox) However it is assumed that the ratio on Ar36 and Ar40 has always been constant; this assumption is known to be wrong.-Fist of all Ar40 in the atmosphere is constantly being gained do to the decay of K-A change in the temperature can also alter the ratioIn fact the ratio of the gases in the air is not constant; supposedly the early atmosphere was extremely different than todays atmosphere, or at least this is what most, if not all of the theories of abiogenesis claim, besides air bubbles have been found in the fossil record, and the ratio of atmospheric gases is not the same than todays, for example there was 35% more oxygen in the past, I don´t know the ratio of Ar40 and Ar36 but if other gases had different ratios in the past, why assuming that Ar was different? Of course if you prove to me that ancient air had the same ratio than today, you will make a point.So we can not tell the initial conditions in the samples, not even with isocron dating.2) the second objection is that we dont know if there was any contamination in the sample. In fact water can contaminate the sample, because K can be dissolved in water, and assuming that the sample was never in contact with water is such a big assumption.Evolutionist will then say, porous rocks are not dated, and that the inside of the rock doesnt touch water. In other words they claim that the inside of the rock is clean, and free of water.However they forget an important variable, this variable is EROTION, deteriorate rocks, thus, the inside of the rock will eventually become the outside.When it comes to isochron dating, the sample can have what scientists call a false isochron, a false isochron is an isochron that in th sample that was not there when the rock was formed. So how can we distinguish a true Isochron, from a false isochron. The answer is; we can´t.3)In my last video I mention the example on Mount St Helens, because is the most famous one, but many other volcanoes have been dated with K-Ar with wrong dates. Evolutionists claim that K-Ar can not be used to date young samples, supposedly the rock has to be at least 2 Million years old, however young fossils have been dated with this method, for example Java Man (500,000yo) was dated with K-Ar, so shouldnt you reject Java Man? Besides, how can we know if the rock is 2 million years old in the fist place? evolutionists assume a given date before using radiometric dating, in other words, they have to know what they are looking for before dating the sample.Besides in a ´´flood geology´´ K-Ar´´ can not work, for many reasons, for example, if the volcano erupted under water, then the lava would have had solidify much faster, therefore more argon would be trapped in the rockRosa.valdesA metallic sphere from South Africa with three parallel grooves was found in the Precambrian. It is clearly man made, so ether humans lived during the Precambrian, or there is something wrong with your dating methods.(Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson Hidden history of the human race chapter 6, at the end) e-book http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/hiddenhistory/hiddenhistory06.htm#6%20-%20EVIDENCE%20FOR%20ADVANCED%20CULTURE%20IN%20DISTANT%20AGES)
UPDATE: Disbeliever of E Challenge
- Length: 3:31
- Rating: 5.00 (3 ratings)
- Views: 40
- Author: k87jury
Tags: a01011399 Arronk1994 challange Coonkiller92 egg evolution gene JustATrick k87jury laying LionPebs369 scotzbhoy
scotzbhoy: Honest attempt but misunderstood the article.Coonkiller92: HoaxArronk1994: Hoax then quote-mineda01011399: Also ignores egg laying gene. Have to admit mutations are positive, but evolution is part of god's plan.JustATrick: 6 kinds of evolutionLionPebs369: It is not science.
Debate: ID vs Evolution
- Length: 1:42
- Rating: 3.50 (8 ratings)
- Views: 127
- Author: a01011399
Tags: aragon creation creationism creationist dating debate evolution evolutionism evolutionists potasium radiometric wrong
Radiometric dating K-ArObjections1)we can not know the initial conditions of the sample2)we don´t know if the sample was contaminated3)K-Ar gave wrong dates in volcanic rocks that resulted from Mount st Helens, if the volcano erupted decades ago, why where the rocks dated to be million of years ago?reaction K + H20
Page: 1 of 22